Originally Posted by skywatch (Post 804239)

If you thought I was emotional, I apologize. Internet debates rarely move my blood pressure. As far as addressing your points in your post, I have to admit I did not understand what your point was.

Personally, I thought my post addressed your argument fairly effectively, but maybe I misunderstood your point.

I thought you implied that CHQ management was evil because they purposely neglected required maintenance and then got caught. I thought that you reasoned this must be so because no one else gets caught. I pointed out that lots and lots and lots of other airlines got caught. I would have thought that would have slowed you down a little, but I was wrong. So I must have misunderstood what you were saying, because you are still arguing despite the fact that there are lots and lots of airlines out there that get fined by the FAA all the time. Pilots don't purposely bust altitudes, and I don't think mx purposely blows off maintenance. I believe at the end of the day, no airline is really that evil.

But I also believe that we really went to the moon, and I don't believe that DIA is the home of the new world order, so what do I know?

Originally Posted by goaround2000 (Post 804330)

So the recurrent theme with your posts seems to be:

- Not addressing anyone's points that weakens your own point view.

- Other carriers are subject to equal or greater fines, thus making it an automatic paperwork snafu which management did not have anything to do with, even though such clerical errors extended through a period of two years, two types, and five different inspections (sure a thing pal).

- You refuse to engaged in the debate so you resort to calling me a conspiracy theorist.

- You're a big fan of management and Tim Martin (this last one is more of a joke based on your avatar, assuming you actually know what a sense of humor is).

Let me know when you're ready to address the points you failed to address in your last two post, and we'll continue the debate.

As I said earlier you and I will have to agree to disagree as to whether management knew about this or not, but as I posted 3 times already, the administrator seems to think they did, and they didn't manage their maintenance program.

goaround

Originally Posted by Fletch727 (Post 804344)

Have to be honest after reading the back-and-forth between you two; his rebuttals appear to be fine but falling on your deaf ear.

Originally Posted by goaround2000 (Post 804350)

It would appear that he took one of my comments out of context. I asked why other CRJ/ERJ did not a problem complying with AD's and inspections? He came back with a list of fines, that neither detail the reason, or the severity of the violations.

A. I never claimed that CHQ was the only one having problems, nor that other carriers didn't have problems. However, the problems at CHQ seem to be amplified by the length of time, the number of inspections missed, and the fact that we're talking about two different aircraft types.

B. The second part of his argument is that management did not know and that this is nothing more than a clerical error. The FAA disagrees and so do I.

Apparently he refuses to either address the points made after his post, and/or agree to disagree. Frankly, it doesn't matter to me much, but it is a bit alarming that there are pilots out there that would go to bat for Bedford even while his bending them over the table.

goaround

Originally Posted by shfo (Post 803009)

I want to know who decides the amount of the fine. Eagle was recently fined $2.9 million for flying 1100 flights with improperly repaired gear doors while Chautauqua was fined 348,000 for flying 27,700 flights with various inspections missing.

In other words Eagle was fined $2,636 per flight and Chautauqua was fined $12.56 per flight.

Originally Posted by Bug Smasher (Post 802897)

I've seen Babbitt comment on plenty of stories since he took the reins. I think he's trying to keep involved with the FAA's current events and to also establish a certain bit of name recognition, maybe...

I know y'all want to throw management to the fire. You'd probably not mind throwing your maintenance department on the flames once the thing's hot enough, either. But, speaking as a furloughed CRJ pilot and a current mechanic at a regional, nobody (at my company) seems to willingly violate ADs and inspections. The system is so complex and there are so many hands involved, that it becomes almost inevitable that something slips through the cracks. An inspection gets performed but not properly entered in the computer and voila.. it never happened on paper. Or, if the computer never tells us to perform an inspection... then... it ain't gonna get done, period.

As a mechanic, it seems that there are a lot more ways for the Feds to get their pound of flesh from me than there was when I was flying the line.

I'm sure the true cause with this won't see the light of day, but my guess is that some hiccup in your carrier's maintenance scheduling software missed certain parameters to to trigger the inspection.

Originally Posted by goaround2000 (Post 802892)

Without a doubt, such actions merit such response, wouldn't you agree? I think Babbitt went easy on them. Nice to see the Feds doing their jobs for a change.

Originally Posted by Fletch727 (Post 804344)

Have to be honest after reading the back-and-forth between you two; his rebuttals appear to be fine but falling on your deaf ear.

Originally Posted by goaround2000 (Post 804330)

So the recurrent theme with your posts seems to be:

- Not addressing anyone's points that weakens your own point view.
-- I thought I was. Sorry. I cannot think of way to make my "point view" any clearer, so I will try this.

- Other carriers are subject to equal or greater fines, thus making it an automatic paperwork snafu which management did not have anything to do with, even though such clerical errors extended through a period of two years, two types, and five different inspections (sure a thing pal).

Never said it was an automatic anything, never said management had anything to do with it. My point was that it happened to a lot of other carriers, and that CHQ is certainly not unique. Also, for kicks, lets suppose an airline did intentionally put peoples lives in danger by intentionally refusing to do required maintenance - do you think all the FAA would do is fine them? Don't you think the penalty might be steeper?

- You refuse to engaged in the debate so you resort to calling me a conspiracy theorist.

If it walks like a duck...otherwise, I am doing my best to engage.

- You're a big fan of management and Tim Martin (this last one is more of a joke based on your avatar, assuming you actually know what a sense of humor is).

Not a fan of Management, but I did fly B-17 bombers with Tim in the big one. That is a photo of our aircraft limping home after a German fighter collided with her and nearly cut us in two.

Let me know when you're ready to address the points you failed to address in your last two post, and we'll continue the debate.

Actually, I think I am good if you want to call it a day.

As I said earlier you and I will have to agree to disagree as to whether management knew about this or not, but as I posted 3 times already, the administrator seems to think they did, and they didn't manage their maintenance program.

I disagree that the FAA is of the opinion that the violation was intentional or that management was "aware" that it was occuring. You base that on this sentence from the article - "FAA investigations found that problems with Chautauqua's management of its maintenance program and its system for tracking the status of airworthiness directives led to the alleged violations." I am of the opinion that the writer used "management" to mean Chautauqua's ability to effectively manage the program, meaning a breakdown in the system and the unintentional issues that a poor sytem of management caused. You seem to think the writer meant "Management" (capital M) of the system, meaning the employee Managers willfully violated FAR's, which I would think would get A and P certs pulled. I think your interpretation is incorrect, and defies logic. In any case, in my opinion there is certainly no logical interpretation of that sentence that one could use to indicate willful or intentional misconduct. If I am wrong and you have a source that shows the FAA found willful violations, please post and I will stand corrected.


goaround